Kit Fister:Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user. And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?

he's not advocating regime change, just removing the chemical weapons from play.

why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

Unlike Libya, Or Iraq I and II or Afghanistan, there are no legal fig leafs to hide under, he has to have this Congressional approval. I can't see Congress voting to approve this intervention. The left doesn't want it; the right doesn't want it. Obama's supporters are tepid, his enemies adamant on refusing to aid him.

And I'm very ok with that. Let someone else jump in if they think its that important.

dumbobruni:Kit Fister: Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user. And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?

he's not advocating regime change, just removing the chemical weapons from play.

why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

Abe Vigoda's Ghost:the_foo: Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.

No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.

Even if they did steal the chemical weapons, it just drives home the point that they shouldn't be there since they are being used to commit atrocities.

Strike the chemical weapons sites with Tomahawks and give aid to the refugees. Let everyone else put boots on the ground.

The part that bothers me is, he's not entirely wrong. It would be like ignighting a powder keg. He already has Hamas fighting on his side, and russia supplying arms. On top of that, on the "rebel" side, Al Qaeda has become a large enough force to be of concern. While the singular power of Syria isn't a huge concern to countries like the US, or even Israel, it's the conglomeration of a multitude of factions that farking hate eachother(sunni/shi'ite, mainly)such as Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

Maybe, just this once, we should look down while walking through the pasture, and make sure we avoid that big, stinky, explosive cow-pat...

incrdbil:The left doesn't want it; the right doesn't want it. Obama's supporters are tepid, his enemies adamant on refusing to aid him.

I have been thinking this too but lately based on the way they are pushing for it I am wondering if the lawmakers will vote for it even though there isn't a lot of support. I am sure there are a lot of military contractors lobbying for an attack and really they have more sway than all americans.

Kit Fister:Another vote for staying the hell out of it. This is my opinion, and is in no way meant to be informed commentary on foreign policy or "telling other people what to think". I have no ties to the GOP and do not support them.

mainstreet62:Abe Vigoda's Ghost: the_foo: Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.

No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.

Even if they did steal the chemical weapons, it just drives home the point that they shouldn't be there since they are being used to commit atrocities.

Strike the chemical weapons sites with Tomahawks and give aid to the refugees. Let everyone else put boots on the ground.

Since those "sites" are schools, hospitals, public offices, as the guy on AGT sang, "Whatca gonna do?"

LOL. Ok, have fun being a target then. Muslims sure as hell hate you already. Why not just add a few more to the list.

....ever notice how the rest of the planet is staying out this sh*t...and the only people pushing for a strike. Are the French. Nah. Ignore it. You got to be right, because it never backfires on you. Does it?

If there were any merit to attacking Syria, there would be little problem putting together a coalition of nations.Lots of nations have the capability. EU, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Jordan blah blah blah....

Attacks will change little. They will just put nations more in debt. It's Syria's civil war. Do not meddle.

dumbobruni:Kit Fister: Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user. And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?

he's not advocating regime change, just removing the chemical weapons from play.

why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

I think it goes without saying that WMDs of any kind are a bad thing. And yes, they should be removed from play. But WHY - WHY, OH WHY, is it the job of the US to handle it?! Why not the UN? Why not Israel, since they are right there? Why is it always the US that needs to be the police force of the planet?

This weekend, my Tea Party loving father told me how impressive Putin is when we were discussing the ramifications of Syria. He gets all his talking points from the usual suspects. He also shat all over John McCain because of his comments that may have sounded like they were originally supportive of Obama.

So, the most noble America loving are now enamored with a foreign leader that hates us, want us to not go to war because the President might want to (even though they have never avoided war talk in the past - strong military spending and such) and continue to turn their backs on the man they think should have originally won the White House.

7 years ago my father was a registered Democrat - then he got old and a nonwhite man became president.

durbnpoisn:I think it goes without saying that WMDs of any kind are a bad thing. And yes, they should be removed from play. But WHY - WHY, OH WHY, is it the job of the US to handle it?! Why not the UN? Why not Israel, since they are right there? Why is it always the US that needs to be the police force of the planet?

In Africa it does jack-shiat except for Libya and occasional bombing runs in Somalia (along with Eithiopia and Kenya). France took the lead in Mali, Comoros and Ivory Coast, with UN assistance, and did just fine. the African Union does well too, although almost exclusively with Chinese weapons.

for the past 11 years several African countries and the EU have been fighting jihadists across North Africa.

the UN took the lead in East Timor, the DRC, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.

just because you have not heard of it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

So, remember, kids, it's OK because the US doesn't intervene *everywhere*, and thinking that it's bad that we do is stupid.

durbnpoisn:dumbobruni: Kit Fister: Infernalist: Kit Fister: Infernalist: It's not that at all. It's fear of what will happen to them if they use it. Fear of what the United States will do to them.

and people are suggesting that we shrug off this CW attack and dispel that fear and let them know that we won't do anything to them for it.

People are farking stupid.

You're right. you've convinced me. Bomb the shiat out of Syria, send in troops if we have to, and make them pay for ever thinking about using any kind of CWs. No skin off our nose if other nations over there get involved, their fault for supporting a CW user. And, we'll just deal with the chaos, poverty, and continued death and destruction in the aftermath when it comes to it, because America, fark Yeah(tm).

Go crawl back under your bed, everything will be alright out here.

LOL, so, you complain when people are against your position against using military force. Then you complain when people agree to your position of using military force. What the fark do you want?

he's not advocating regime change, just removing the chemical weapons from play.

why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't matter which side used them, the weapons need to be destroyed regardless.

I think it goes without saying that WMDs of any kind are a bad thing. And yes, they should be removed from play. But WHY - WHY, OH WHY, is it the job of the US to handle it?! Why not the UN? Why not Israel, since they are right there? Why is it always the US that needs to be the police force of the planet?

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

I'm not a teabagger and hardly a pacifist. My point is that we have NO EVIDENCE as to who actually used these weapons. My previous question didn't get answered...are we to now bomb BOTH SIDES because we don't know who used the chemical weapons?

What's the end game for us? We take out Assad and then what? We let an Al Qaeda-friendly government take over?

If we bomb Syria, do they react by hitting Israel with chemical weapons? You might as well just light the whole farking region on fire on that point because World War III will start.

This is not going to be solved simply by dropping a few cruise missiles on Syria.

dionysusaur:Here's something like a thought: what if we ripped up the regional map drawn by the colonial powers for the stated purpose of keeping things simmering, and drew a new one on ethnic/sectarian lines?

So because the regional maps imposed by colonial powers didn't work we should force them to reorganize based on ethnic/sectarian lines? Fark that if they want to reorganize the entire region let them deal with it and have the US stay as far away as possible.

So... if we attack he'll start a war that has everyone in the region wiping out their neighbor, thus leaving nothing but a human free wasteland above a series of trillion dollar oil fields.This was the "threat"?Does he understand how threats work?

/Explain to me why we haven't fired the missiles yet?/Did the sequester cut the drone inventory or something?

InfrasonicTom:Pick: I say lob a 250 Kt mini nuke on his palace while he's having lunch there.

then what?

Football season starts Thursday. So we do it in the morning and catch the game that evening. Friday, I'll go down to the Corner and have ribs at the Biltmore. I'm not sure what all that has to do with anything, but you did ask.

mainstreet62:Abe Vigoda's Ghost: the_foo: Shadowe: I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Oh wake up you farking moron. He's saying anything he can to avoid getting the ass kicking he richly deserves. Whether or not you think the US should get involved, you'd have to be a damned fool to think that a dictator who has been slaughtering his own people for two years is advocating for peace out of the goodness of his heart.

No doubt he's a bad guy. But I also would not put it past the rebels to stage a chemical weapon attack to try and get the U.S. involved in this civil war.

Even if they did steal the chemical weapons, it just drives home the point that they shouldn't be there since they are being used to commit atrocities.

Strike the chemical weapons sites with Tomahawks and give aid to the refugees. Let everyone else put boots on the ground.

Blowing up chemical weapons with a missile is too much like dynamiting a whale to get it off your beach.

bdub77:I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I think Obama is forcing a House vote on a Syrian strike because 1) it's a lose-lose for anyone running for House in 2014 so it's like a big middle finger to Congress and the House in particular, 2) he doesn't really want to invade Syria and needs a way to back out, and 3) he doesn't want to be impeached.

Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.

1) agreed2) He wouldn't have to had he not painted himself into a corner with his STUPID 'red-line' comment on chemical warfare last year. Now he HAS to either do something, or look like a chump. Consulting congress and having them say no is his ONLY out. Meanwhile, this is the same guy who has circumvented congress in order to get his way more than once in the past. So why start now? It's not like he NEEDS congressional approval to pull the trigger (as it were). He's the commander in chief. When/If he says go, they go.3) Agreed. Why? Because that would hurt his fragile ego even more than doing nothing in Syria. Look. People can apologize for him all they want, but he really stuck his foot in his mouth last year. And now he's been called on it. So his only hope is that he doesn't get congressional approval and spins faster than ever in an attempt to make people believe that actually matters to him AFTER he's done end-runs around it in the past. So yeah. He's between the rock and a hard place he put HIMSELF in. My prediction? He's too much of a megalomaniac to do nothing even if congress won't go for it. He'll do 'something' with or without approval. What do I THINK he should do? I think he should swallow his pride for once and do nothing. But he won't.

unfortunately there is an unholy alliance of pacifists and teabaggers on this issue.

I'm not a teabagger and hardly a pacifist. My point is that we have NO EVIDENCE as to who actually used these weapons. My previous question didn't get answered...are we to now bomb BOTH SIDES because we don't know who used the chemical weapons?

What's the end game for us? We take out Assad and then what? We let an Al Qaeda-friendly government take over?

If we bomb Syria, do they react by hitting Israel with chemical weapons? You might as well just light the whole farking region on fire on that point because World War III will start.

This is not going to be solved simply by dropping a few cruise missiles on Syria.

Wouldn't it be possible to have some bombing runs across all of the known chemical weapon missile depots and command outposts, while also "accidentally" hitting as many al qaeda locations as possible? Both sides suck at this point, the original laudable leaders of the Syrian revolution are all dead now, and the civilians on the ground will be the ultimate losers.

Meh, I expect Iraq to enter the war when both sides are weakened enough. It's Al Qaeda in Iraq that's largely backing the revolution now anyway.

/Sick and tired of seeing family and acquaintances posting stupid conspiracy theories about Syria nonstop for weeks now.

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Consulting congress and having them say no is his ONLY out. Meanwhile, this is the same guy who has circumvented congress in order to get his way more than once in the past. So why start now?

The first sentence answers the question at the end, IMO he made that comment a year ago it's a more complicated situation on the ground now so to get out of attacking pass it on to congress and after they get off their vacations they can vote on it. The if they vote no it's on them and if they vote yes it's on them, politically it was a brilliant move.

Marine1:snocone: Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.Whatever will we do next?

... dude, there's two or three. Depends on whether you count Kuwait as "liberated all to hell" and whether or not you call Afghanistan "the Middle East". Iraq makes the list as the only definitive one.

Iran was still in the ME the last I checked. We liberated the shiat out of them in the 50s.

incrdbil:Unlike Libya, Or Iraq I and II or Afghanistan, there are no legal fig leafs to hide under, he has to have this Congressional approval. I can't see Congress voting to approve this intervention. The left doesn't want it; the right doesn't want it. Obama's supporters are tepid, his enemies adamant on refusing to aid him.

And I'm very ok with that. Let someone else jump in if they think its that important.

Actually he still has 90 days or just needs the French or Turks to launch the opening shot then treaty obligation blah blah blah. And the Republicans are going to vote yes because they will tie a defense budget increase to it